News Tiana's Bayou Adventure - latest details and construction progress

[Vclguy90]

Was Chapek given a chance? Was he constrained by Iger? I don’t know the answers.

I'm kinda under the impression that Chepek was given Igers and had to make lemonade. But got blamed for it not tasting good. It's hard to turn around a plan of destruction that's already set in place within his tenure. Iger got out because Disney was going under, it didn't, so he wanted to come back in like a knight. I don't really think Chepek actually initiated anything but more went along with a plan that was already in motion before he became CEO. It's almost like a conspiracy.

A sidenote and off topic: I talk to a lot of people at Pixar and stuff is going on there. I'm very open about my opinion with Iger and all they ever do is stare me in my face and say "Iger is great." Dead inside.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

Was Chapek given a chance? Was he constrained by Iger? I don’t know the answers.

Chapek has never particularly been a popular figure among Disney fans for a multitude of reasons, but primarily because he just isn't very good at fulfilling either Disney CEO type.

CEOs for the company have usually come as one of two types: the ones who're very creative and love the story aspect of the company (your Walts and your Michael Eisners) and the ones who're more focused on the business and what revenue could be derived from their products (your Walker's and Iger's). Both types had different motivations, but what they did have in common was an ability to properly communicate to the public and to the company as a whole what it was they wanted to do and what their goal and vision was.

Chapek was neither type and hilariously bad at the communication part.

Chapek showed little interest in the artistry of Disney and he showed very little skill as a businessman at the same time. Sure, he was dumped with a lot of Iger's decisions, but he made several decisions of his own that proved to be quite bad ones. Not to mention he had a nasty, nasty habit of putting his foot in his mouth and saying things that reflected very poorly on the company and himself.

Iger has many, many, many faults. And unfortunately since he's come back for a second round, those faults have been more prominent. But it also cannot be ignored that he ushered in the most financially prosperous era of Disney's entire history all while also maintaining a generally well made product (even if it didn't quite match the company's previous peaks in the creative department). He showed that someone could be business oriented without also making themselves and the company look foolish, and Chapek spent his entire brief tenure as CEO demonstrating that that is kinda all he was able to do.

He was given a chance. People didn't like him going in, but most people were cautiously optimistic about a shakeup and new set of eyes on everything. He just kept proving over and over and over again why he wasn't cut out for it and people kept losing their patience with him more and more.

Frankly, for all the problems I have with Bob Iger (and there are tons), I'd rather have him than I would Chapek because Bob at the very, very least knows when it's time to shut up and just make a pivot and try something else. Chapek has no clue when it's time to shut up and reassess something.

 

[Vclguy90]

Chapek has never particularly been a popular figure among Disney fans for a multitude of reasons, but primarily because he just isn't very good at fulfilling either Disney CEO type.

CEOs for the company have usually come as one of two types: the ones who're very creative and love the story aspect of the company (your Walts and your Michael Eisners) and the ones who're more focused on the business and what revenue could be derived from their products (your Walker's and Iger's). Both types had different motivations, but what they did have in common was an ability to properly communicate to the public and to the company as a whole what it was they wanted to do and what their goal and vision was.

Chapek was neither type and hilariously bad at the communication part.

Chapek showed little interest in the artistry of Disney and he showed very little skill as a businessman at the same time. Sure, he was dumped with a lot of Iger's decisions, but he made several decisions of his own that proved to be quite bad ones. Not to mention he had a nasty, nasty habit of putting his foot in his mouth and saying things that reflected very poorly on the company and himself.

Iger has many, many, many faults. And unfortunately since he's come back for a second round, those faults have been more prominent. But it also cannot be ignored that he ushered in the most financially prosperous era of Disney's entire history all while also maintaining a generally well made product (even if it didn't quite match the company's previous peaks in the creative department). He showed that someone could be business oriented without also making themselves and the company look foolish, and Chapek spent his entire brief tenure as CEO demonstrating that that is kinda all he was able to do.

He was given a chance. People didn't like him going in, but most people were cautiously optimistic about a shakeup and new set of eyes on everything. He just kept proving over and over and over again why he wasn't cut out for it and people kept losing their patience with him more and more.

Frankly, for all the problems I have with Bob Iger (and there are tons), I'd rather have him than I would Chapek because Bob at the very, very least knows when it's time to shut up and just make a pivot and try something else. Chapek has no clue when it's time to shut up and reassess something.

I agree with you but I think it's time for Bob and Bob to go into Vault Disney and never resurface. I rather an 82 year old Michael Eisner - probably even more bats*** crazy now - than either of them.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

I agree with you but I think it's time for Bob and Bob to go into Vault Disney and never resurface. I rather an 82 year old Michael Eisner - probably even more bats*** crazy now - than either of them.

Honestly, I would generally prefer if they got someone in there who is a good bit younger and perhaps comes from somewhere within the company that gives them a good idea about to how handle both sides of the operation (creative and financial).

I don’t know that would be, thought.

I’ve heard several different rumors floated around about who has been chosen but nothing concrete. The name I hear most often in the rumor mill is Dana Walden which I would not be completely opposed to, her resume is impressive. But yeah even she doesn’t fit into exactly the kind of mold I’d like to see a CEO take.

Someone who could be a mix of Eisner’s willingness to try creatively and care about the art and Iger’s understanding of finances and how to quickly respond to sudden changes in them would be great.

 

[Homemade Imagineering]

Okay so I’ve calmed down a little bit since the initial POV release, and I took some time to watch the others. My opinion remains however, yes the set dressing is very pretty and in a vacuum those are no doubt some very impressive animatronics. I don’t think this is nearly as bad a situation as JII. That will always be the absolute worst decision this company has ever made in it’s 100 year history, and will remain a huge disservice to fans until it is properly rectified.

Anyways, I do have faith this is not a lost cause IF they decide on investing some more capital into this in order to flesh out a good number of those dead spaces. They must also need to include some sort of grander conflict in this, whether that’s Facilier or something else entirely. Also, where the heck is Bruno Campos?? They explicitly said his voice work would be featured and yet he remains absent? I really wished they’d gone with that initial concept art in the boat as they’d initially released, and there was also a standalone Timoléon figure in a different configuration within that scene which never appeared anywhere.

Speaking of which, what was the point of the animation diagram for him showcasing all of those complex facial movements and whatnot? He received a total of 2 identical limited motion figures of which his facial features are stagnant and even seem obscured by his fur. Allowing him to be a complex AA throughout the attraction would’ve made alot more sense, at the end of the day this whole thing just leaves me with so many more questions than answers. It genuinely seems like some of these elements were for some reason cut or simply forgotten about, and I too am baffled at how much they spent on this for it to turn out as this confusing fever dream of what should be.

Also again… no side critters, which they could have at least made into static figures for some attractive vignettes to fill in some of that dead-space, but no… at the end of the day I am not asking for them to bring back SM, I know that ship has long since sailed, but there is so much potential for this to be improved upon. It almost reminds me of the confusion behind the Jurassic World redo of Jurassic Park at USH. The retheme opened with an incomplete finale scene, and several elements missing in the predator cove section. If they indeed are missing some elements that were sacrificed in order to open this thing in time for the summer, then that would answer alot of my questions and qualm my concerns. I actually hope that is the case, but until then I will continue to feel unsatisfied with this project. I hope someone out there in the know can eventually provide some insight into why the final product is so confusing

 

[Stripes]

Spoiler: Alternate POV not made by Disney

New POV shared on Youtube by someone at a preview. Much better video than Disney produced, shot during the day, and all of the speaking lines appear to be the alternate set. Dare I say it works better? I wasn't a hater but this at least looks a little better than the first video we've all seen.

Looks like a great attraction and pretty much what I expected. The Louisiana bayou at night theme is gorgeous and I expect it’ll look even better in person. I don’t quite understand some of the criticism. Like the criticism that it’s too barren and lacks enough animatronics. There are more than enough animatronics and animated figures to tell the story and the sets are far more beautiful than what Splash had which were highly saturated and cheap/fake looking. In fact, some of my favorite parts of the ride are where there‘s not a lot of movement and we’re just taking in the sets and getting more immersed in the bayou.

If I consider the ride in a vacuum, it‘s a great attraction although not without faults. But I’ll always be comparing it to Splash. For me, seeing that finale scene without hearing “Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah” is triggering. The music was critical to what made Splash a great attraction. And the music in this attraction just doesn’t hold a candle to Splash Mountain’s melodies even if the music is actually pretty good.

Just my thoughts and opinions. As someone who dearly misses Splash Mountain and wishes it wasn’t replaced, this ride is getting far too much nonsensical criticism.

On the bright side, if people don’t end up enjoying the attraction I think many that are critical of the decision to replace Splash, including myself, will consider this attraction a blessing in disguise because Disney won’t be tempted to replace another beloved attraction for a very long time.

 

[basas]

I agree with you but I think it's time for Bob and Bob to go into Vault Disney and never resurface. I rather an 82 year old Michael Eisner - probably even more bats*** crazy now - than either of them.

I agree. I think a lot of fans (probably myself when I was younger) don’t appreciate or understand the financial aspects of the company. Yes, Disney is built around creativity, but it’s still a business…the company needs to make money. There are investors to think about. Lots of fans moan and complain about lack of investment in the parks, but the company has to make a return on that investment…partly why I’ve been so vocal in this thread that I think this particular project was geared more towards PR and politics than anything related to ROI (more merchandise sales as some have opined). I’m probably one of the few fans with the opinion that genie+ should be more expensive. I’d operate it like the HOT lanes on a freeway, where the price for an attraction’s LL goes up and down based on real-time demand such as an attraction wait time.

I have not been impressed by Iger at all since his return. He’s failing on both the creative side and the financial side. This project is a prime example and, unfortunately, I am not very optimistic about the next few years. While a few recent films have shown some promise, the outlook for the Orlando parks until the later half of this decade looks very bleak. TBA is all Disney has to offer to compete against Epic Universe for the next few years. Yes, there have been numerous attractions opened in the last few years, but many have been underwhelming and I don’t for the life of me understand why they insist on keeping the virtual queues for Tron and Guardians…surveys must indicate people prefer them, but I don’t see it based on personal experience. As an aside, the fact that Disney built Tron (and to a lesser extent Guardians) without sufficient indoor queue space in Orlando of all places is lazy and inexcusable (did they just copy and paste from Shanghai? Seriously, who in charge felt outdoor switchbacks in the sun would be the best choice for the majority of Tron’s queue?).

 

[basas]

On the bright side, if people don’t end up enjoying the attraction I think many that are critical of the decision to replace Splash, including myself, will consider this attraction a blessing in disguise because Disney won’t be tempted to replace another beloved attraction for a very long time.

I don’t believe that for a second, unfortunately.

 

[basas]

I don't disagree with that. My point is more that he doesn't personally approve every expenditure within the parks, but this was a case where he was more involved than normal.

Clearly not, but surely he must be on board with the overall budget/concept, right? Especially with this project. Whether the poor execution is the fault of the imagineers who designed this ride or management who tied their hands…someone on the “inside” will have to answer that.

 

[Stripes]

I have not been impressed by Iger at all since his return. He’s failing on both the creative side and the finance side.

Iger has only been back for a year and a half. The films premiering this summer will be the first to have his imprint on them since he came back. (Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes probably did too.)

The critical creative approvals for this project were almost certainly made by Chapek/D’Amaro.

Financially, the company is doing much, much better than when Iger came back. Any claim to the contrary is nonsense.

 

[Stripes]

I don’t believe that for a second, unfortunately.

Well, I don’t either. Because I think the typical guest will love the attraction.

 

[basas]

Iger has only been back for a year and a half. The films premiering this summer will be the first to have his imprint on them since he came back. (Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes probably did too.)

Financially, the company is doing much, much better than when Iger came back. Any claim to the contrary is nonsense.

Seriously? What is nonsense? Don’t you remember Covid? I think you’re giving Iger way too much credit…

 

[basas]

Well, I don’t either. Because I think the typical guest will love the attraction.

So what? The “typical guest” loved Splash. Some report it rated highest on guest satisfaction surveys. So what exactly did $200 million get us? A downgrade?

 

[Stripes]

Seriously? What is nonsense? Don’t you remember Covid? I think you’re giving Iger way too much credit…

Chapek was fired because the company reported a terrible quarter and he was talking to investors like everything was sunshine and rainbows. He even highlighted Mickey’s Not-So-Scary Halloween Party on the conference call, which investors could not care less about. It was brutally embarrassing for the company to have a CEO so utterly oblivious to the company’s struggles let alone any plan to address them. And yes, Chapek navigated the Covid period which saw the company take on a lot of debt, but there were plenty of non-COVID related business decisions that Chapek made that were damaging the company.

Iger, from the moment he got back, was clear-eyed about the company’s challenges. And the financial results have drastically improved since his return.

Now, people say they want Eisner back but they forget that Eisner was giving us this crap before he left.

 

[basas]

Chapek was fired because the company reported a terrible quarter and he was talking to investors like everything was sunshine and rainbows. He even highlighted Mickey’s Not-So-Scary Halloween Party on the conference call, which investors could not care less about. It was brutally embarrassing for the company to have a CEO so utterly oblivious to the company’s struggles let alone any plan to address them. And yes, Chapek navigated the Covid period which saw the company take on a lot of debt, but there were plenty of non-COVID related business decisions that Chapek made that were damaging the company.

Iger, from the moment he got back, was clear-eyed about the company’s challenges. And the financial results have drastically improved since his return.

Alright, I get it. You despise Chapek and think Iger is fantastic. I’m allowed to hold a different opinion.

Chapek was literally CEO for probably the worst two years any executive could be in charge. How much of what went wrong don’t you attribute to Iger, who had been in charge for the preceding 15 years? I would argue the company underperformed the last five years of his tenure and the seeds had been planted…

 

[Midwest Elitist]

Chapek was fired because the company reported a terrible quarter and he was talking to investors like everything was sunshine and rainbows. He even highlighted Mickey’s Not-So-Scary Halloween Party on the conference call, which investors could not care less about. It was brutally embarrassing for the company to have a CEO so utterly oblivious to the company’s struggles let alone any plan to address them. And yes, Chapek navigated the Covid period which saw the company take on a lot of debt, but there were plenty of non-COVID related business decisions that Chapek made that were damaging the company.

Iger, from the moment he got back, was clear-eyed about the company’s challenges. And the financial results have drastically improved since his return.

?

 

[Vclguy90]

Iger has only been back for a year and a half. The films premiering this summer will be the first to have his imprint on them since he came back. (Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes probably did too.)

The critical creative approvals for this project were almost certainly made by Chapek/D’Amaro.

Financially, the company is doing much, much better than when Iger came back. Any claim to the contrary is nonsense.

And who cares about how they are doing financially? I want them to actually find themselves again and pump out some hits, via film or parks. Have you seen Disney+ lately, it looks like an hogeposh of an identity crisis and trying to stay relevant.

And sure, the argument can be made that if they weren't doing things right than why are they so financially successful? I mean, I truly don't think we know how financially successful they are since all they are doing robbing Peter to pay Paul between their subsidiaries. Parks are great but film/TV is in the dumpster so let's use the parks to pay for flop after flop after flop. That has a domino effect that we all pay for in quality of experiences. But as for the parks, they are profitable because they are charging more and giving less now. They charge for EVERYTHING now to where it's all an expense and no value - and there is a huge difference between the both when it comes to patron retention. But profits don't mean satisfaction is great. I rather a poor company that spits out quality hits than a wealthy company that spits out garbage. Iger is a numbers person and more numbers to him deems success and that isn't always true and he isn't really learning from his mistakes or other's feedback as all he is focused on are the dollers rolling in. The only reason the dollars are rolling in is because it's Disney. People aren't coming back for his regime, they are coming back for the quality and the feel of the regimes that preceeded him. Kids that grew up during his regime won't know the parks that Eisner and before made magical for us. Thus they aren't coming back as adults. This is going to filter down as the years pass.

 

[Stripes]

View attachment 789149
?

 

[CAV]

I’m being more direct about it than those engaging in the sort of behaviour I’m referring to. It’s impossible to discuss properly

without breaking forum rules, so I’ll leave it there.

Suuuuuuure. Right up until the point you made that post, I had no clue who was behind the ride. Nit. One. Clue. I had to Google the names. I am sure I am not the only one. Belonging to a particular demographic does not and should not shield anyone from legitimate criticism.

 

[LittleBuford]

Suuuuuuure. Right up until the point you made that post, I had no clue who was behind the ride. Nit. One. Clue. I had to Google the names.

Then you can rest assured I wasn’t talking about you.